I never understood why AMD decided to go with a tri-core processor. It seems like a waste of money if they have to make a quad core processor, only to turn around and disable one of the cores to make it tri-core. With more quad core processors coming out, it seems like it would make more since to skip 3 cores and just go with either 2 or 4, or start working on a 6 core model..

I would expect a tri-core processor to beat a core 2 duo, but how much improvement do you think the Q6600 would be over the tri-core?

Well, if it is a failed core it really isn't a waste of money it is actually a way to save manufacturing cost. Instead of having to dump all the defective dies they can just disable a core and keep the rest. And the end user should save a bit since they are technically getting a defective product. Kind of an ingenious way to saving the defective product, if that is indeed what they did. If they did it on purpose then that is a bit wasteful and pointless. Of course if it is just a disabled core perhaps some hardcore over clockers could find a way to enable the fourth core and make it a cheap way to get a quad core proc.

Koloth thats exactly what AMD did and its a good move on their part especially since these cpu's are pretty much dead cheap for what your getting.

What it is: A Phenom X3 Cpu is a Phenom X4 that had one defective core, AMD Disables this core and its cache and sells it as a tri-core cpu, saves them/makes them money and gets better yields that way. say 80% of quad cores turn out good, and another 12% turn out with one faulty core, it gives them 92% yield over 80% Yield. its quite a good move, especially since Intel CANNOT do this as their quads are just 2 fused C2D's AMD uses 4 independent cores thus making them alot more versatile.

On Paper AMD Should be the king, they just can't pull off the workload per-clock that Intel is right now, its only a matter of time until they make a come back and take the crown imo. especially since Intel seems do be already going back to their MHz/FSB Quad pumping dependncy taht we saw in the 3.6ghz P4's that were getting wrecked by 2.2ghz AMD's.

The prices are decent but I think to be competetive they have to slash the price a bit more than that already see'ing as the X4 2.4GHz is only $45 more, which is barely a premium and for $49 more you can get a X4 9850 Black edition.

I was most attracted to this review to see the difference between the X2 5000+ BE vs the X3 8750, as I currently run a 5000+BE. What I didn't like in this review against the two processors is that the reviewer reduced the performance of the 5K+BE by *bleep*ing the multiplier from 13 stock to 12, and only overclocking a fraction of the stable performance increase of the X2. I run all the systems I build with 5KBE's at 3.060Ghz 204FSB 1.425vcore and 15multiplier. This is the most stable overclock and is the only way to make use of an unlocked multi. If the 5000+BE was given then same treatment time the X3 8750 to find this out then I believe the performance gap between the X2 and the X3 is significantly different. The whole idea behind a benchmark is the benefits of price vs performance. The value of the X2 vs why waste money on another core if its useless. Already at just 200Mhz OC on the 5K+BE it beat out the X3 8750 in many bench results. If given proper attention to 100% stable OC capability like was done with the X38750, I think I'm seeing that AMD has again offered a marginal and useless gap in performance at a premium bleeding edge price for a mid-range CPU. I'm a little miffed that the bench was not as thorough on the difference between what is most common in current systems (X2's) vs what +'s or -'s another core and possibly an entirely different motherboard would yield. At the settings I have my 5KBE at, I don't think the X3 8750 for $195.00 is worth thinking twice about. 1-3% gain for a few dollars shy of $100 difference is a waste, and especially if you have to purchase a new mobo capable of using an AM2+ socket type CPU. It's a good thing AMD is still cheaper than Intel...it's their only saving grace at this point when a mid grade dual care 6750 rapes the "gaming oriented" AMD processors even with the benefit of having the memory controller on the chip. I have always had AMD but I'm having to look elsewhere for performance for my SLI system. Intel+Nvidia 8series is the only way to go for insane performance for $$. And the intel 8000 series core2 Duo's are monsters by comp to any of these x3's or even the X4 9900. When 2cores>4cores...It's time for a radical re-engineering.

Well, if it is a failed core it really isn't a waste of money it is actually a way to save manufacturing cost. Instead of having to dump all the defective dies they can just disable a core and keep the rest. And the end user should save a bit since they are technically getting a defective product. Kind of an ingenious way to saving the defective product, if that is indeed what they did. If they did it on purpose then that is a bit wasteful and pointless. Of course if it is just a disabled core perhaps some hardcore over clockers could find a way to enable the fourth core and make it a cheap way to get a quad core proc.

Or spend $45 more and don't bother re-engineering for months, with great frustration. Besides, AMD is throwing out what they consider a new chip that's less in production cost for themselves but only at a discount of $40-50 USD of the real thing X4. Why does AMD bother with, "well, we don't have anything like what you want, but we've got this thing we've been kicking around..we were going to throw these away but found out they still work" ??? makes them look weak and defeated.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an AMD fan, but I think the company is running a 1-legged race against themselves...not Intel with these CPU's. A 5000+ Black Edition is currently available in the USA for $87.00 USD shipped...the X3 is Minimum $148.00 shipped and the differences between the X3 8450/8650/8750 are a nill...200Mhz difference from bottom to top performer. Same cache, same stats... differences are only 2.1/2.3/2.4...with pricing at $148.00/$165.00/$195.00. Would any of you go out and buy a new motherboard and one of these when you can perform on equal ground with its predecessor by overclocking an $87.00 CPU on your existing AM2 board?

It's a little silly. And AMD is getting more and more silly daily. Not an Intel fan, but when they're boasting an upcoming 6 and 8 core CPU coming later this year...and AMD is boasting a 3 core and 4 core CPU that they finally fixed after releasing thousands of fundamentally broken ones...It's embarrassing to brag about any AMD allegiance with other members of the gaming or computing community.

Note to Guests: Advertising of any kind is not allowed in these forums!If you fix your problem on your own, please post a message describing how you fixed the issue so that others with a similar problem can use your method to fix their issue.